H.R. 9495: A Failure and A Warning
Recently, the House killed a bill that would allow for Treasury Secretaries of administrations to punish non-profits, including political action groups, charitable organizations, news outlets, cause oriented organizations, and many others by stripping them of their tax rights, ostensibly for “supporting terrorism”, a charge that could be brought to political opponents with little bearing on the administration or treasury secretary to explain how they arrived at the accusation.
H.R. 9495, informally called the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, would be the first step to massive infringements on the 1st amendment, and creates more opportunities to expand the “enemy within” narrative, as it would permit political targeting of Palestinian advocacy groups, the ACLU, and many others as “terrorists.” Normally I would not talk in depth about something that congress defeated, but I am doing so for a few reasons. Number 1, I believe it is important to know recent history of the legislature as we come head to head with the prospect of yet another Trump presidency (the administration and leadership style that inspired the creation of this bill), and Number 2, when my followers ask, I answer. In short, this bill might be dead. There is nothing saying they won’t try it again.
The large scale problem with this bill is that it perpetuates an idea that dismantles democracy. The safeguards of our civil liberties are vast, and include groups informally known as “legislative influencers.” These are groups such as unions, the ACLU, medical associations, etc. that do the work that the political process cannot, or will not do. They have political sway in their endorsements, public statements, open letters, and op-eds. They can influence legislation, and are stakeholders in many political matters, but they are not political powers in the traditional sense. They operate legally under the first amendment, and have been a consistent pillar in the lives of citizens of our country. They exist in service to their work and their causes, whatever they may be, regardless of who the President of the United States is.
Term limits are the second pillar of democracy that this bill seeks to weaken. A President serves a maximum of 8 years (if you’re watching, that means nonconsecutive too, Donald), but this bill ensures that a particular President’s overtly combative and monarchical political agenda could outlast their administration. While I firmly believe in the rights of a President to make their mark on the history of that illustrious office, whether or not I agree with their political agenda, I am not sure that certain powers should last in the executive office if they are the antithesis of the philosophy of leadership. In other words, should we cement the idea for Presidents to come that the people they are leading are their enemy? Is there not something to be said for upholding the notion that the president is the President of the United States, not The President of People Who Agree with Them (Thank you Aaron Sorkin)? I believe that we should be eliminating the “enemy within” sentiments, immediately if not sooner.
These two facets of democracy intersect with this bill. A President should not be able to say that a faction of their citizens, that operate legally and for the good of the people, will be punished for disagreeing with them and can be labeled as “supporting terrorism.” For one thing, it destroys the first amendment protections we are all entitled to. For another, it fundamentally tarnishes the office of the President Of The United States. I cannot imagine running in a campaign for the highest elected office in the land, promising to defend the citizens of this country, and swearing loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, and being so petty as to seek punishment for those who do not agree with you. Wanting to charge those who disagree with you with treason, for their legal and long standing work, is un-American. A President, traditionally, works with such groups by hearing them out and signing or vetoing bills related to their causes that come across his desk. If the House overrides, then so be it. Such is the system set forth by the Founding Fathers. The power, ultimately, rests with the people.
I want to note that the House, not Donald Trump, introduced this bill. I want it noted that the bill was introduced while Joe Biden was president. However, it was introduced by Republican New York Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, who claimed the charges against Donald Trump were “a shameless attempt to silence” the then-former President. He called the trials and charges a clear election interference from Joe Biden, saying that the justice system was being abused by the Left because Trump was beating President Biden in the polls. She nominated Donald Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize earlier this year.
In short, while I have expressed optimism about the makeup of Congress because of the narrow majority held by the Republican Party, and the Senate appointing John Thune, it is important to remember that there are still people like Tenney in Congress. She kept her seat. I do not think, as I have said, that it is a foregone conclusion that all the Republicans in Congress are staunchly for Trump, but it also cannot be discounted that there are several congressional representatives who have set themselves apart from the traditional party and joined the MAGA Republican movement.
It is important to remember first and foremost that the House killed the bill, and along the way there were many attempts from both parties who introduced cuts and amendments in an attempt to gut the most dangerous provisions of the bill, before it finally failed to pass in the House. It is possible that this is the end of the road for overreaching legislative dismantling of the Bill Of Rights. I hope that is the case. However, it is also possible that Tenney and those like her will be emboldened by the re-election of Donald Trump, and will try again to hand him tyrannical power on a congressionally approved silver platter. The real work to be done, with this knowledge in mind, begins now, because more bills like H.R. 9495 can be stopped completely in two years, not four. If this bill, and what it will say about our country, about the office of the President, concerns you, then say so. We can get ourselves the congress we, as a free nation, deserve.
